• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How much sex in films/television is too much?

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What do you think? Can sex in films and television go too far?

I think they can, actually. I think there's a certain line people shouldn't cross. I think sex can be done creatively and erotically in the sense that is done tastefully. But I do think that people can go way too far and often do nowadays. It's easy to just say, "Well, it's freedom of speech." Or, "It's art!" But the theory that anything can be portrayed as long as it is done artistically is stupid. There are still elements of decency and morality that should be adherred to, with us being a civilized species and such.

Two films that come to mind are, "Dangerous Beauty" and "Meet Joe Black." I think the sex scenes in those films were very erotic and well done.

But a lot of sex in movies and television nowadays is just gross and offensive, such as South Park. I like South Park for the most part but a lot of times they just go too far and do things that are simply in poor taste. It's odd how in modern society we seem to laugh at pretty much anything and think that are no longer any standards of decency.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There are still elements of decency and morality that should be adherred to, with us being a civilized species and such.
Why should it be? Just cause you say it should? There is no such thing as morality except how an individual understands it. So basically you would be shoving your own morality down others throats.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Personally, I am much more concerned with gratuitous violence in films than I am about sex. Not that I object to graphic violence when appropriate in its context, but many movies are made now that center around the exploitation of violence for its own provocative effect. These movies bother me very much. Like I just saw last night that they've remade The Hills Have Eyes.......wonderful. :roll:

I am not in the least afraid that simulated sex or sexual references would, in some way, negatively impact my kids. Gratuitous violence, on the other hand, I am very wary of when it comes to its possible effect on young minds. One experience is largely positive and happy, the other engenders largely negative feelings like terror and revulsion. It's no contest.
 
Last edited:

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
mixedmedia said:
Personally, I am much more concerned with gratuitous violence in films than I am about sex. Not that I object to graphic violence when appropriate in its context, but many movies are made now that center around the exploitation of violence for its own provocative effect. These movies bother me very much. Like I just saw last night that they've remade The Hills Have Eyes.......wonderful. :roll:

I am not in the least afraid that simulated sex or sexual references would, in some way, negatively impact my kids. Gratuitous violence, on the other hand, I am very wary of when it comes to its possible effect on young minds. One experience is largely positive and happy, the other engenders largely negative feelings like terror and revulsion. It's no contest.
Great post, I couldn't agree more.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When I mentioned sex, I was referring to perverted sex. I don't see how someone could argue that we should graphically show child molestation, for example, and that would be just dandy for society. Media, I'm sure you wouldn't sit your kids down to watch this. So there are, in fact, limits to what kind of sex we should publically portray.

I think violence to a certain extent is simply neccessary in a film. I can't think of one film that didn't have at least some violence in it. A great set of films with a lot of violence in them are the Kill Bill movies. Violence is absolutely neccessary in predicting war movies, look at Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. I think it was good that Spielberg made it realistic because then I think it would actually detract people from committing crimes. I mean look at Japan, it's one of the safest countries in the world and they put massive amounts of violence in their cartoons.

I would probably say that only a small amount of sex is actually, needed in a film for it to be a box office hit. Like Titanic, for example. Titanic had much more violence in it than sex and it was the top grossing film of all time. But whereas more violence is usually neccessary in order to make a film realistic and enjoyable.

I do admit there is probably a limit to how much violence we should show too but I just not as much so as with sex.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
George_Washington said:
When I mentioned sex, I was referring to perverted sex. I don't see how someone could argue that we should graphically show child molestation, for example, and that would be just dandy for society. Media, I'm sure you wouldn't sit your kids down to watch this. So there are, in fact, limits to what kind of sex we should publically portray.

I think violence to a certain extent is simply neccessary in a film. I can't think of one film that didn't have at least some violence in it. A great set of films with a lot of violence in them are the Kill Bill movies. Violence is absolutely neccessary in predicting war movies, look at Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. I think it was good that Spielberg made it realistic because then I think it would actually detract people from committing crimes. I mean look at Japan, it's one of the safest countries in the world and they put massive amounts of violence in their cartoons.

I would probably say that only a small amount of sex is actually, needed in a film for it to be a box office hit. Like Titanic, for example. Titanic had much more violence in it than sex and it was the top grossing film of all time. But whereas more violence is usually neccessary in order to make a film realistic and enjoyable.

I do admit there is probably a limit to how much violence we should show too but I just not as much so as with sex.
You know what, George? I don't think you 'splain yourself too good in your opening posts.

And you tell me how two hours of watching a family terrorized and brutalized is somehow more morally acceptable than the portrayal of child molestation? How is someone being hacked to pieces with a sword somehow less perverted than any form of sex?

I disagree with your thesis.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as too much sex (or violence) in films or television, as long as parents have reasonable means of controlling what their children may watch. I also do not think it is the job of the entertainment industry to support the public morals.

I have certain aesthetic standards about what I choose to watch, but they have nothing to do with morality.

edit: As regards the exploitation of children-- if you can depict it without actually engaging in it, then I do not have any strong moral objections to it. Grab an 18-year-old, slap some pigtails on her, and make your movie. Just don't expect me to watch it-- and don't show it to my kids unless you have my express permission.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't have a problem with sex or violence in movies for adults.

I do think there are instances though where sex per se is marketed to kids. For example the slutty looking bratz dolls that my 5 y.o. daughter loves. The clothes made for girls in grades k-6 with words on the butt. Cartoons for little ones where the girls have huge boobs, wear tight clothes, and look like male fantasies. These days its very hard to tell how old a teenage girl is. Some of them look like they are in their late 20s.

The boys in boy bands are very boyish and most of them are in their early 20s. However the girl teen idols are all very adult looking and very sexualized. Most of them have fake boobs and straight up sell their sexuality.

I believe our youth are being sexualized at an earlier age and parents can only do so much to prevent this from happening. That sort of worries me.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
mixedmedia said:
I am not in the least afraid that simulated sex or sexual references would, in some way, negatively impact my kids.
Me either. However I do think tons and tons of images where women/girls are objectified into nothing but a sex object can be harmful to kids.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think this country is totally ***-backwards in its views on sex and violence.
Video games, cartoons, movies, tv all have more violence than could possibly happen in real life and it's 99% gratuitous, over the top and is so permeating that kids become desensitized to it. But have a breast fall out at the Super Bowl halftime show....:roll: We're a joke in this regard and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
ngdawg said:
I think this country is totally ***-backwards in its views on sex and violence.
Video games, cartoons, movies, tv all have more violence than could possibly happen in real life and it's 99% gratuitous, over the top and is so permeating that kids become desensitized to it. But have a breast fall out at the Super Bowl halftime show....:roll: We're a joke in this regard and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
I didn't see the whole Janet Jackson thing. Did her breast fall out accidentally or was it exposed after Justin Timberlake ripped her shirt...which was part of the show? It makes a difference in my mind cause an accident where your shirt slips and your breast shows is an accident. However a guy singing he will have you naked by the end of this song and then ripping your shirt is totally different and sends a weird message.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
talloulou said:
I didn't see the whole Janet Jackson thing. Did her breast fall out accidentally or was it exposed after Justin Timberlake ripped her shirt...which was part of the show? It makes a difference in my mind cause an accident where your shirt slips and your breast shows is an accident. However a guy singing he will have you naked by the end of this song and then ripping your shirt is totally different and sends a weird message.
The official claim was a 'wardrobe' malfunction in that when Timberlake ripped her shirt, he also grabbed her bra and ripped that as well, exposing her for about an nth of a second....the song was dumb, considering...guess it's ok to sing about getting naked, but DOING it is simply horrid!!! :roll:
Which brings me to another hypocritical point in this neo-victorian society-why is it ok to sing about 'shakin yo' ***', lovin 'big butts', 'making her cum all night long', and getting naked, but a female breast gets you fined? The videos shown on tv make women nothing more that booty-shaking, 5-inch heel-wearing bimbos any time day or night and that's ok. Show a couple, any couple, gay or straight, having sex and suddenly we have to blindfold the kids.....unless they're beating each other senseless, then it's CSI or something.....
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
ngdawg said:
The official claim was a 'wardrobe' malfunction in that when Timberlake ripped her shirt, he also grabbed her bra and ripped that as well, exposing her for about an nth of a second....the song was dumb, considering...guess it's ok to sing about getting naked, but DOING it is simply horrid!!! :roll:
Which brings me to another hypocritical point in this neo-victorian society-why is it ok to sing about 'shakin yo' ***', lovin 'big butts', 'making her cum all night long', and getting naked, but a female breast gets you fined? The videos shown on tv
make women nothing more that booty-shaking, 5-inch heel-wearing bimbos any time day or night and that's ok. Show a couple, any couple, gay or straight, having sex and suddenly we have to blindfold the kids.....unless they're beating each other senseless, then it's CSI or something.....
I think its all about context. For example I don't let my kids watch CSI. I don't watch football either but I know for alot of families the superbowl is a "family event."

I think a real accident where a boob is seen 'cause your shirt slipped is different. I think the outrage over Janet's superbowl incident was more that alot of people believed it was intentional. Wasnt she wearing like a jeweled pasty to cover her nipple? In the superbowl situation your little kid is watching a guy almost half Janet's age sing to her that he's "gonna have her naked by the end of this song." Then he rips her shirt. Then her bejeweled pasty nipple is shown and all the while she feigns shock and surprise. That's not exactly family entertainment and thats not exactly the kind of thing I want my kids exposed to. That's why people were outraged. They felt it was the wrong context for that type of entertainment. They weren't prepared for it and didn't know it was going to happen in time to stop their kids from seeing it.

Young kids are too little to understand that it was planned for Justin to rip her shirt as part of the "entertainment." They just see a guy rip a womens shirt and then the woman acts shocked, surprised, but also pleaed. It's a very confusing message for wee ones.

Now if my kids see people making out I don't consider that any big deal. If they see someone accidently expose some skin I don't care and I don't think they'd even notice. If Janets shirt really just accidently slipped I don't think you would have seen the same level of outrage.

All the stuff on MTV is crazy but it's easy to keep my kids from watching MTV right now while they're little. When they're teens though I'm sure it will be harder but they will be older and have a better grasp on the message I give them vs messages they see on TV. I want my daughter to feel worthy because of who she is. Now if she wants to feel or look sexy as well when she's the right age that's fine too. However I don't want her raised on the idea that women are sex objects.
 
Last edited:

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's the point of it being hypocritical. Singing about getting naked and then a boob comes out(and it was a piercing, not a pasty), is two-faced. If the boob isn't appropriate for 'family entertainment', why was the suggestive song?
People want it both ways and keep moving the line, all the while daring to cross it. Then when it's crossed, they get pi$$ed off.


But, hell, I'm just a whacko, what do I know?:roll:
 

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
George_Washington said:
What do you think? Can sex in films and television go too far?

I think they can, actually. I think there's a certain line people shouldn't cross. I think sex can be done creatively and erotically in the sense that is done tastefully. But I do think that people can go way too far and often do nowadays. It's easy to just say, "Well, it's freedom of speech." Or, "It's art!" But the theory that anything can be portrayed as long as it is done artistically is stupid. There are still elements of decency and morality that should be adherred to, with us being a civilized species and such.

Two films that come to mind are, "Dangerous Beauty" and "Meet Joe Black." I think the sex scenes in those films were very erotic and well done.

But a lot of sex in movies and television nowadays is just gross and offensive, such as South Park. I like South Park for the most part but a lot of times they just go too far and do things that are simply in poor taste. It's odd how in modern society we seem to laugh at pretty much anything and think that are no longer any standards of decency.
Strangely enough, I have to agree with u. I never watch South Park or many movies. they are to gross. Yet it is true about Freedom of Speech, and the constitution. We need to protect the rights of the least against the majority. that is freedom of speech.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I can't think of one film that didn't have at least some violence in it.
i think you need to watch some nicer films!...lol
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I can't think of one film that didn't have at least some violence in it.
i think you need to watch some nicer films!..lol

I think as long as the programming is put out at a decent time then it is fine. As long as kids aren't around then adults can decide what to watch in their own homes
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
mixedmedia said:
You know what, George? I don't think you 'splain yourself too good in your opening posts.

And you tell me how two hours of watching a family terrorized and brutalized is somehow more morally acceptable than the portrayal of child molestation? How is someone being hacked to pieces with a sword somehow less perverted than any form of sex?

I disagree with your thesis.
Well geesh Media, maybe you don't explain yourself too well either. I was just going by Your statement:

"I am not in the least afraid that simulated sex or sexual references would, in some way, negatively impact my kids."

...Would seem to indicate that you would think it would be ok to show virtually any kind of sex to your kids. I mean just think of all the forms of sex that could be, "simulated" and shown to children. I would say that somebody being, "hacked to death with a sword" would be much less damaging to a child depending on how it was portrayed and if it had proper context. Plus, it would depend on how realistic it was, how much blood was shown, etc. But the fact remains that historically, violence has been more shown in films than sex so perhaps sex is the more disturbing to children. And your assertion that molestation would be less shocking than violence is really an oxymoron because molestation is violence in itself. The vast majority of psychologists agree that rape isn't about sex, it's about hatred, aka violence. So it really is just as much violence as it is sex, which only adds to the argument that it would be inappropriate for kids to view.

I think a good example of films with sword related, "violence" are Highlander, Gladiator, and Braveheart. I don't think the violence in these films would harm children because the films themselves were very well done and had great substance. I think a film where someone raped a child would be much, much more damaging to a kid. A lot of young boys like to play with toy weapons and such. I know I did as a child. But what young boy is going to want to watch something so sick as the former mentioned? Disgusting.
 
Last edited:

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
dragonslayer said:
Strangely enough, I have to agree with u. I never watch South Park or many movies. they are to gross. Yet it is true about Freedom of Speech, and the constitution. We need to protect the rights of the least against the majority. that is freedom of speech.
True, we do. I wouldn't be for government outright banning films but I think people who put really extreme and perverted stuff in their films should realize that they're going to not only get an NC-17 rating but a lot of mainstream theaters won't carry their films either. And possibly a lot of upset people out there and lack of loans for their next film.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ngdawg said:
I think this country is totally ***-backwards in its views on sex and violence.
Video games, cartoons, movies, tv all have more violence than could possibly happen in real life and it's 99% gratuitous, over the top and is so permeating that kids become desensitized to it. But have a breast fall out at the Super Bowl halftime show....:roll: We're a joke in this regard and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
The thing is, nobody wants to admit that we have problems in this regard. But the fact is, we've become so desensitized to so much, it makes you wonder. What's next? How much more is the envelope going to be pushed? When are we going to say enough is enough? Or are we going to say that anything goes, that it's all just freedom of speech?

I remember that Alexander Hamilton once wrote that in order to maintain a civilized society, freedom of speech should never be taken to an infinite value. In fact, that was his basis for not including in the Bill of Rights to begin with. He also said that it would only ultimately lead to them violating the rights of others, such as the example of a man yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It makes you wonder if he had, in fact, been correct. But it really wasn't just Hamilton, either. There have been many reputable scholars that have also wrote about the dangers of freedom of speech taken to the extreme.

I personally think that if something is so extremely perverted and demented, we shouldn't just bury our heads in the sand and say it's freedom of speech. We should look at the person and wonder if the creator of this material is really in his right mind or if he is mentally ill.

Another good topic to be discussed in this thread is: When can a filmmaker cross the line and potray things that only a mentally ill person would portray? I would think that any reputable psychiatrist would certainly suggest that certain forms of expression in their most extreme forms could certainly indicate a sign of mental illness or kind of mental condition.
 
Last edited:

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
George_Washington said:
...Would seem to indicate that you would think it would be ok to show virtually any kind of sex to your kids. I mean just think of all the forms of sex that could be, "simulated" and shown to children. I would say that somebody being, "hacked to death with a sword" would be much less damaging to a child depending on how it was portrayed and if it had proper context.
You tell me which movies coming out of Hollywood are portraying sex so vile and perverted that they would be more traumatizing to a child than the vile and perverted violence that is already coming out of it?

Plus, it would depend on how realistic it was, how much blood was shown, etc. But the fact remains that historically, violence has been more shown in films than sex so perhaps sex is the more disturbing to children.
Sorry George but that is a very silly assumption. Do you really suppose that Hollywood makes choices on content based on what would be disturbing to children? Give me a break. Fact is, extreme violence is much more acceptable than sex, thus Hollywood produces accordingly. I find this a backwards and disturbing reality in itself. Graphic, realistic ****ing is more disturbing than graphic, realistic murder. Do you ever think about it that way?

And your assertion that molestation would be less shocking than violence is really an oxymoron because molestation is violence in itself. The vast majority of psychologists agree that rape isn't about sex, it's about hatred, aka violence. So it really is just as much violence as it is sex, which only adds to the argument that it would be inappropriate for kids to view.
Yes, I believe that seeing a movie that has child molestation in it SHOULD be less shocking than seeing someone's head chopped off. But that's just me, I guess.

I think a good example of films with sword related, "violence" are Highlander, Gladiator, and Braveheart. I don't think the violence in these films would harm children because the films themselves were very well done and had great substance. I think a film where someone raped a child would be much, much more damaging to a kid. A lot of young boys like to play with toy weapons and such. I know I did as a child. But what young boy is going to want to watch something so sick as the former mentioned? Disgusting.
Well, I was thinking of the film Kill Bill.

Let me just add that I am not for film censorship. I just see the obvious hypocrisy that exists in America as regards the subjects of sex and violence.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
George_Washington said:
The thing is, nobody wants to admit that we have problems in this regard. But the fact is, we've become so desensitized to so much, it makes you wonder. What's next? How much more is the envelope going to be pushed? When are we going to say enough is enough? Or are we going to say that anything goes, that it's all just freedom of speech?

I remember that Alexander Hamilton once wrote that in order to maintain a civilized society, freedom of speech should never be taken to an infinite value. In fact, that was his basis for not including in the Bill of Rights to begin with. He also said that it would only ultimately lead to them violating the rights of others, such as the example of a man yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It makes you wonder if he had, in fact, been correct. But it really wasn't just Hamilton, either. There have been many reputable scholars that have also wrote about the dangers of freedom of speech taken to the extreme.

I personally think that if something is so extremely perverted and demented, we shouldn't just bury our heads in the sand and say it's freedom of speech. We should look at the person and wonder if the creator of this material is really in his right mind or if he is mentally ill.

Another good topic to be discussed in this thread is: When can a filmmaker cross the line and potray things that only a mentally ill person would portray? I would think that any reputable psychiatrist would certainly suggest that certain forms of expression in their most extreme forms could certainly indicate a sign of mental illness or kind of mental condition.
And all this concern extends only to the portrayal of sex? I just don't understand it.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
mixedmedia said:
You tell me which movies coming out of Hollywood are portraying sex so vile and perverted that they would be more traumatizing to a child than the vile and perverted violence that is already coming out of it?
Well, not neccessarily, "Hollywood". I think though the smaller, independent films tend to do more, "out there things." I remember back in the 90's there was an independent films called, "Happiness". Someone had told me it was dark humor like Pulp Fiction. I enjoyed Pulp Fiction very much. I like Tarantino, so I went to see it. But it wasn't anything like Pulp Fiction. It was this film that made child molestation into a comical act. It was just disgusting. And then they had sickening scene at the end with a dog, I don't even want to mention what it was. But I thought that the entire film was from the mind of someone who had to have had mental/emotional issues. I can't believe there actually a few somewhat famous people that stared in it.



Sorry George but that is a very silly assumption. Do you really suppose that Hollywood makes choices on content based on what would be disturbing to children? Give me a break. Fact is, extreme violence is much more acceptable than sex, thus Hollywood produces accordingly. I find this a backwards and disturbing reality in itself. Graphic, realistic ****ing is more disturbing than graphic, realistic murder. Do you ever think about it that way?
lol No, they don't but I'm just saying the fact that most people don't feel that violence is as disturbing as "realistic ****ing" lol, maybe that is a good indication that it isn't.



Yes, I believe that seeing a movie that has child molestation in it SHOULD be less shocking than seeing someone's head chopped off. But that's just me, I guess.
Yeah, not to me it wouldn't be. I'd much rather watch a film with good martial arts action, for example, than watch something like that. Maybe it's partly cause I'm a man but still.



Well, I was thinking of the film Kill Bill.

Let me just add that I am not for film censorship. I just see the obvious hypocrisy that exists in America as regards the subjects of sex and violence.
But how do you know it isn't just the natural way to feel about things?
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
mixedmedia said:
And all this concern extends only to the portrayal of sex? I just don't understand it.
Because it's just here in America, it's like we're always afraid to be against something because freedom of speech. I mean surely we can't just walk around like emotionless robots just cause of freedom of speech.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Look, there's a really simplistic answer here. If you don't want to see gratuitous sex, don't watch the film. If your a sane adult without a bunch of sexual hang-ups, enjoy!
 
Top Bottom